GUEST POST: Streatham Hustings Reviewed

GUEST POST!! The following post is written by PianoMan, a friend and reader who thought it only fair that the Streatham hustings (held the same night as the Tooting one) get represented up here too. So blame him! Might be useful for anyone within the constituency wanting relatively even-handed information to go by...

The Streatham Hustings was an admittedly tame affair, but probably all the more enjoyable and enlightening for it.


Church-organised, the audience was predominantly Christian and, well, let's say just a tad more charitable than your average hissing and booing Question Time mob. At our rather more reserved event, a smattering of applause followed absolutely everything that was said (even questions) - damning praise indeed!

The debate's moderator was a kindly likeable old Christian gent and clearly clued up on his political issues. But Paxman he was not, and despite repeatedly and firmly (well, firmly for a kindly, likeable old Christian gent) telling candidates to stick to 1 minute long answers, the candidates routinely took as long as they liked. This had a similar effect (on the MPs) as when I find myself at an 'all-you-can-eat' buffet: I may well be stuffed full already, but I'm still going to eat as much as I can anyway. Because I can. And so the candidates tended to ramble on even if they had nothing left to say. Because they could.

As a result, there was no time for debate between the candidates and limited time for questions. And some of the (relatively few) questions perhaps seemed a little more suited to a Miss World contest - "if you had only one prayer for Streatham, what would it be?".

Finally (let's get all the negativity done!), the degree of consensus between the candidates perhaps betrayed a lack of gritty political debate in favour of too much aspirational rhetoric. I mean, you can't really disagree with people saying repeatedly that poverty is bad, and education is good. At times, I would have liked more specifics.

Okay - negative stuff over - this absolutely did not mean the hustings was a waste of time. On the contrary, its flaws actually had major advantages. The candidates were obviously relaxed by the good-natured audience, and seemed able to show us who they were and what they were about (good and bad). I also got the impression that, oddly I suppose, they didn't seem desperate to impress the audience at all costs. This lack of cynicism was refreshing and at times enlightening (see later.) The whole thing was also decidedly light on party political backstabbing, and juvenile insults, which perhaps made it less exciting but, again, more refreshing.

Now, the candidates:

Chuka Umunna (Labour candidate) was the night's biggest cheese. Umanna has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ by the media. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass.

At first I was on the verge of huge disappointment. Chuka seemed a bit bored, a bit disinterested, a bit like he was above the whole event (football anoraks: think Berbatov playing at Tottenham) – almost as if he simply felt the need to tick the Christian box, before moving onwards and upwards. And this – conveyed by slightly clumsy body language, and a couple of impatient answers - came across as arrogance. (Note: Chuka later said that his biggest weakness was being able to 'read him like a book', especially when he was bored). I also noticed that in his first few responses he seemed inclined to use the term 'helluva lot', well, one hell of a lot - especially considering the possibly conservative audience.

But, pretty soon he started to warm up, exhibiting some of the rhetorical flourishes that have him marked out as a rising star. The only candidate to have been born and raised in the area, his knowledge on and passion for the area was evident and undeniable. His long impassioned answer on how we can tackle gang crime in Streatham had the audience rapt and inspired. One got the impression that if Streatham wanted an impressive, dynamic and passionate ambassador, then we could do a lot worse than putting our tick next to Chuka's name come May 6th.

The green party was represented by Rebecca Findlay. My main doubt about the green party is that we all know their main issue is the environment, but are all of the other policies that are essential to our lives (and indeed essential if we want to begin to tackle climate change) an afterthought? Ms Findlay actually did a good job of assuaging these doubts – she was composed, a good speaker, with a decent command of facts and policy. Sometimes I worried about her pragmatism – I'm a fairly liberal chap, but actually think that big companies (such as Tesco) would be of benefit to the High Road area, and wouldn't necessarily want her to be campaigning against it (so long as smaller businesses were somehow supported.)

Would she get more votes as a mainstream candidate? Yes, definitely. Did she convince people that green was not a wasted vote? I would say no.

The Tory party candidate was one Rahous Bhansali. A personable chap – he came across as the most humble and humorous candidate. Flaws? At times he sounded like he was still rehearsing his political speeches in front of the mirror – doing his best David Cameron impression - rather than engaging with a local audience, on local issues. The answers were a little vague, a little too aspirational and didn't imbue me with confidence that he knew the Streatham constituency particularly well nor would be the much needed fierce advocate for the area.

Finally, the Liberal Democrat candidate was Chris Nicholson. He's a Clapham chap (accountant) who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink, and, from the recent polls, would appear to be the main opposition for Chuka. He also has previous political experience as a local counsellor, and a government advisor (on economics). At the time, I didn't know much about Chris Nicholson, other than having got fairly sick of receiving his cheap looking literature through the post which said nothing else but to 'vote Chris Nicholson if you want to get rid of Gordon Brown's tired old Labour government'. (Note: since, I have received slightly more informative fliers).

However, from his performance at the Hustings I would argue that his negative literature has not done this (clearly thoughtful, warm, humble and passionate) man justice. Motivated by his personal Christian faith (which is about as much as he said on the matter), he said (believably) that he was in politics because he wanted to see more social justice. Very much in line with his party's manifesto, Chris was passionate about fairer taxes that would put money back into the pockets of the constituency's poorest residents. I was also impressed by his mention of getting alongside the marginalised in society – in particular asylum seekers and immigrants. One got the impression, from his humility and lack of bluster, that Chris was the kind of MP that would be approachable and accountable to his constituents - particularly striking in a time where most people have lost their faith in arrogant and greedy politicians.

My vote? Well, firstly, as someone who is fairly left-leaning, I would generally not consider voting Tory, since I do not feel the party at large is committed to the redistribution of wealth, and the equality and fairness that Lib Dems / Labour are traditionally in favour of. I also feel that the Tory candidate here was not sufficiently strong enough to join what is essentially a two-horse race between Labour and Lib Dems (for this seat). Likewise the green candidate, who may have gained more attention were she a candidate for one of the mainstream parties. But as things stand, I think that both a Tory and Green vote would be wasted.

So Nicholson or Ummuna? I would argue that both would be worthy representatives for the area. Both evidently passionate about being advocates for the poor and marginalised, Ummuna would lead from the front (he is clearly going places, and would hopefully take Streatham with him), whereas I feel confident that Nicholson would get alongside his constituents and fight their causes for him.

It's all your choice anyway (providing you live in Streatham of course!) The great thing is that the Hustings gave me a new passion for the area, and fresh belief in the people that want to be our representatives.

A NIGHT AT THE HUSTINGS...

Last night saw our local candidates go head to head in St Nick’s, Tooting for a church-organised hustings in this most open of elections. Well, at least, that was the theory. But let’s start with the major disappointment – Sadiq Khan didn’t show, instead sending Rex Osborn, a local Labour councillor, in his place. This entirely denied the 100-ish present a heavyweight clash and utterly flattened the field for Conservative Mark Clarke. The Liberal Democrat candidate Nasser Butt was present but, with all due respect, it seems his party has (understandably given prior performance) decided not to seriously contest the seat. Butt was an amiable chap, but often failed to grasp the gist of questions asked and gave a shambling performance rather bringing to mind Mr Bean. Cleggmania seems somewhat redundant in SW17… Add this to the fact Councillor Harmon really wasn’t trying to play the part of a candidate – not bothering to stand to answer and saying literally half as much as either of the others – and you are essentially left with the Mark Clarke show.

And it was an impressive show. This guy has been groomed for these moments. He was selected three years ago and moved then back to the area, given time to lead local campaigns and become a champion of the people. It’s cynical in a way – but strangely flattering that Tooting is deemed so important (according to Clarke in conversation afterwards, everyone from CNN to Al-Jazeera are scheduled to be present there for election night – his party have never taken the seat before and it may go down to the last vote!) – and I have personally reaped the benefit of it; Clarke having played a lead role in taking on the infamous Soma Café, next door to my flat. Clarke is a smooth politician; he sussed the audience in a way neither of the others came close to – with an overwhelmingly Christian audience, there were easy ovations to be gained by going hard on abortion, favouring freedom of speech and defending Christian heritage. He brought them home with ease.

Most impressive, however, was Clarke’s contribution to the Health debate. I asked the prompting question, one reflecting on the strengths and issues encountered during my wife’s brain surgery at St. George’s last year, and asking how money would find its way to front line services and staff. Butt’s answer was lame and ill-informed. Osborn went, as I’d expect, down the route of strongly defending St George’s as a great hospital and a privilege we should appreciate. This was more cynical than it sounds – designed to capitalise on recent news stories accusing Clarke of having exaggerated and scaremongered in undermining the hospital for political capital. But Clarke is way above mere gestures on this. He has been showing up to board meetings at St. George’s since arriving in the area. He is an ambassador for Tory’s famous ‘efficiency savings’, having seen the hospital board double in size and award themselves pay rises – NHS Wandsworth in one case paying £750,000 to an individual for an 8-month management contract. By his own admission, the board ‘hate’ him for these observations and he has evidence they themselves leaked the story of his ‘attacks’ on the hospital to the press. But he is in no way an enemy of NHS front-line services; his wife and mother both working in local hospitals. This was clearly his field of expertise and I would have loved to see him lock horns with Sadiq Khan over it.

Which brings us to the other refreshing thing about Clarke. There was a total absence of negative campaigning from him – another calculation for the benefit of the Christian audience? Possibly, but I get the feeling he and Khan are actually pretty good mates outside of election season. He referred to his rival as a ‘local champion’, an ‘exceptional MP’ and, in conversation, even a ‘role model’ to follow if he takes the seat. This goes way beyond mere platitudes.

In fact, I thought the worst thing Clarke did at any stage was to summarise by reminding everyone it was really about David Cameron. This was surely an outdated move, lacking recognition of the poor campaign his leader is having, and the electoral turn-off he’s becoming. After a performance as good as this, the last thing Clarke needed to do was remind us of his bewildered boss. You can bet ‘Gordon Brown’ would have been as unlikely a closing thought from Khan in this company as would ‘socialism’. In fact Cameron is the biggest threat faced by the Tories in Tooting – another poor debate by him tonight and you have to imagine the swing required to deliver Tooting might be gone for good. And it truly has been a poor campaign by the Tories on the whole – when was the last time you heard mention of the ‘Big Society’ presented with great fanfare at the manifesto launch? It already seems like yesterday’s news… (although the policy of parent-owned schools was raised last night – the test case will be up the road in Battersea).

So, where do I now stand? Well, locally Mark Clarke has won me over (and if he does win, you’ll soon hear plenty more of him), and the Lib Dems don’t factor. Which is something of a shame, as nationally the Conservatives are having a ‘mare and there is the prospect of real Lib Dem-propelled excitement. Still, it’s no done deal – I’ve very much enjoyed my ‘floating’ status in a marginal seat this time around. I’ve had a long email from one heavyweight candidate and a long conversation with the other. I’m running a school election launching on Monday, and more people than you might imagine are reading the blog! I’m well aware I’m unlikely to see another election like this one so I’ll continue to enjoy it while it lasts…

SADIQ KHAN PROPERLY WRITES TO ME. BLIMEY...

Now this is utterly unexpected. I’ll admit I sent a token email to Sadiq Khan’s campaign team with a link to my blog, inviting a response. However, the idea that a front bench government minister (albeit only front bench because the actual Transport Secretary sits in the House of Lords, but still!) would take at least half an hour to personally respond to my little blog post is frankly astonishing. I’m not sure there’s a great deal below to change my mind about the need for a change from Labour (although the Conservatives have proved somewhat unimpressive since my original post) but it does preserve my high opinion of the man himself.


“ Dear Andy,


Thank you for sending me the link to your blog explaining why you’ll be voting Tory (I said I probably would. In reality I’m still pretty much floating! Post on Lib Dems to follow… AW). I do of course respect your decision but I hope you don’t mind if I offer you my take on the matter.


I don’t believe by voting for an MP you are merely voting for a party, let alone that party’s leader.


There is a big difference between a good and a bad local MP and I would urge you not to underestimate the interaction between local and national policy. A good MP can take local issues to a national level and bring national help to a local level. For instance, as you may know, the South West London Law Centre (an invaluable local resource) very nearly had to close last year due to financial difficulties. I helped secure Ministry of Justice funding to prevent this from happening. A good MP can make sure Government is aware of the concerns of their community. For example I have arranged for the Foreign Secretary to meet local Tamil community leaders to hear their concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka. Conversely, do not underestimate the impact a divisive MP can have on a community. I have been unimpressed by the way the local Conservatives have been attacking our local hospital for electoral gain. (See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/12/tories-tall-stories-115875-22105198/)


I’m afraid I’m a bit unclear as to whether you’re advocating a PR system or not. Personally I agree with your first point in this regard - that retaining the constituency link is important. I support holding a referendum on AV, and I believe this would ensure MPs reached out to a much wider proportion of their voters. The Tories have no interest in reforming the voting system.


You say you have become more Conservative as you’ve aged and this is of course your choice. However, I do not agree with what seems to be your characterisation of the Labour party (“calling disagreement hatred”, “the desire to regulate anything that moves”). To me the Labour party has always stood for justice and fairness and, as a former Labour voter, I assume this has some resonance with you. When I have supported measures in Parliament such as the 50p tax rate and a tax on bankers bonuses, this is not because I believe that wealth is “inherently bad” as you put it. Rather, I believe that in these difficult economic times progressive taxation is the fairest way forward. I do not think that inheritance and marriage tax breaks are a priority.


Assuming the things you list as Labour achievements indicate what you consider to be important, I am surprised you are considering voting Conservative. Labour has guaranteed to protect the policing and schools budget. The Tories have not. It is worth remembering the Tory legacy. By the end of the last Conservative Government health spending as a share of national income was the second lowest of all the major industrialised countries, and the aid budget had been halved.


Thank you for taking the time to listen to my point of view. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.


Yours sincerely,


Sadiq.


P.S You mention my expenses in your blog. I have always been open and honest regarding my expenses, publishing details on my website before the Telegraph scandal broke. As a new MP in 2005, with a new team of staff, I did make a genuine mistake in claiming for cards. I paid back the money, without being asked to do so, as soon as it was brought to my attention.”

CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT FROM ISLAM!

One of the most common lies of the day is that all faiths are equally true. Or equally false. Or at least equally valid. It’s something I considered on a previous post and may well return to. However, I’d like to here briefly flag up the specific differences between the two great rival faiths of the day: Christianity and Islam. Differences between Christianity and other religions are easier to flag. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism – Jews simply rejecting the New Testament and the claims of Jesus. Buddhism is essentially atheistic, with no specific god – although still supernaturalistic (reincarnation etc). Hinduism? It gets the best stories and has been essential in giving a nationalistic identity to once disparate tribes; but where, despite the New Atheistic scorn, large numbers of credible scientists, academics and philosophers will argue for the burden of proof favouring Christianity, I’m not aware there is any Hindu equivalent to Professor John Lennox proposing an actual scientific basis for the flying monkeys or elephant headed deities of Hindu scripture. (Sikhism I know very little about so I won’t pretend otherwise).

So then, back to Islam and why it is different. In addressing this I am responding to one of my great heroes – that is my grandfather, who has, at ripe old age of 90, authored a compelling book (currently lost in a minefield of copyright complications) proposing bridges between the three ‘Abrahamic’ faiths. I’ll begin by acknowledging his similarities. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are indeed all looking to the same God – the one who revealed Himself to Abraham. They are all monotheistic and each believe in Heaven, Hell and a similar moral code on Earth.

However, beyond that, I have to disagree that they are at all on the same page (although, let me make clear at the outset, I am very much for ongoing mutual tolerance and respect... just let's not be scared of debate and criticism within that!). Christianity involves following Jesus Christ – hence the title. Christians believe he is the Son of God, and the means by which we can re-enter into relationship with God and become acceptable to Him in our sin. Popular ignorance (and in that I do not include my grandfather!) would have Muhammad as another tribe’s interchangeable Christ figure – their culturally applicable bridge to knowing God. However, if so, they don’t know Muhammad and they don’t know Christ.

Attitudes to Peace: Whatever the conduct of Christians down the years, Jesus was in his lifetime a man of peace. The Jews expected a warrior deliverer to free them from the Romans, but Jesus instead told followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, assuring them that ‘blessed were the peacemakers’. Ultimately, he walked willingly to a sacrificial death, coming ‘not to be served but to serve’. For Muhammad, on the other hand, his revelations quickly put him personally at the head of a conquering army. After he had taken Mecca in 630, his second successor Omar took Egypt, Persia and Palestine. This initial tide was to take Islam right into Europe (and conquest of Spain), only being halted by defeat in France in 732. (The Ottomans would later take up the mantle, conquering the likes of Constantinople and the Balkans until ultimately halted by failure in Vienna, 1683). Now if I point out that Islam lends itself to fighting, I will be quickly directed to the Crusades, in which the Christian Pope launched a ‘holy war’ of his own. However, I’d venture that has little to do with Jesus if we’re here comparing faith founders. The early church was marked and known by peaceful martyrdom right up to the point when Rome got its hands on it and changed absolutely everything. Besides which, as an aside, people often forget that Islam was ultimately successful over Christianity in the Crusades and, in actual fact, it was often Christians who were slaughtered by their own (read about the sacking of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade).

And Muslims? Well I don’t want to misrepresent the many. Thankfully for all, the official policy of Sunni Islam is formed by a Hadith (an official saying of Muhammad outside of the Qu’ran) claiming that military Jihad is secondary to the greater Jihad of winning the personal battle to live a holy life (in fact, Jews and non-conformist Christians living in contested areas welcomed both the first Muslim invaders and the later Ottomans as more tolerant and peaceable governors than either their Byzantine or Catholic rulers). However, there have always been those from inside and outside of Islam willing to question the authenticity of such a proclamation. Some,examining both their holy book and the example of both their founder and the early Caliphs, have periodically returned to a literal interpretation of Jihad. Most pertintently to our world, one such voice was Wahhabi – an 18^th Century figure sponsored by his local Arabic rulers. Their name? The house of Saud – ultimately bound to form Saudi Arabia and strike oil. Calls for Jihad are also more legitimate and commonplace in Shia Islam (15% of the Muslim world) as officially practised in Iran. Again, this is not to implicate the bulk of moderate Muslim – they are in the firing line perhaps more than anyone where extremists are concerned. But the link between Islam and violence is far more legitimate than is any such link in biblical Christianity (George W Bush take note!).

Pharisees: It should be noted that Jesus signed his death warrant when taking on the fussiness of the religious authorities. Much of his anger was directed at the fact their love of legalism had surpassed the principles behind it. We see this throughout the gospels – Jesus is at pains to point out, for example, that Sabbath rest was meant to be a good and beneficial thing. Now he saw the Pharisees wanting to punish those healing on the Sabbath, or even picking up a stick! Similarly, they couldn’t abide or hear those failing to observe their own man-made and elaborate washing rituals. Such rule-checking also gave them great status in the community, something else he criticised.

This has clearly come once more to pass in the ‘Hail Marys’ and candles of Catholicism, but even more so it has come to characterise Islam. Where Muhammad urged only modesty in women (and a lot of the Qu’ran seems to celebrate women), creeping legalism has in some places buried them beneath the burqa. Where he prescribed against worshipping images, presumably concerned that people would end up worshipping depictions of him instead of Allah, we end up with murder over a Danish doodle (and who’s going to worship THAT?!).  It seems that Islam (and some state-sponsored Christianity!) has largely become the very thing Jesus would most rail against. Is this just a man-made error both have wandered into or an integral difference between the two? I believe the latter, because Islam is a meritocracy based on earning salvation through works - thus lending itself to a great fear of rule-breaking. Christians, on the other hand, can do nothing, short of believing, to save themselves. From the start of the Islamic calendar the careful rituals of prayer, eating, fasting and pilgrimage were set in place; whilst in contrast the Christian New Testament fulfils and ends slavery to the minutiae of Jewish law.

And the rest! But ultimately, those are just the two points I wanted to make. Outside of them there are huge numbers of differences between Christianity and Islam. Only the former offers relationship with God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, resurrection, the guarantee of forgiveness and much more besides. Above all, Jesus dropped that bombshell of being the long-prophesied Son of God, where Muhammad never claimed to be any more than a Prophet. The new tendency to lump the two religions together as the same old problem (usually with images of 9/11 playing onscreen) is lazy and counter-productive. On another occasion I’ll take a historical hammer to the idea that rational reason alone is any more inherently peaceful – the Renaissance-sparked ideas and technologies having ultimately led us to the great and godless wars of the 20^th Century (because the problem is people!). Neither can you get far in the wishful thinking of seeing Christianity and Islam as similar enough to ultimately pull in the same direction (sorry Grandpa). I admire a lot of Muslims in that they have more principle and remain more distinctive than many Christians. I enjoy the flavour they give my local community in Tooting. I know Muslims I like very much (generally the ones willing to discuss this stuff!). But, ultimately, I think they’re mistaken, and I don't think their beliefs are particularly similar to mine. 

WHY I'M (PROBABLY) VOTING CONSERVATIVE. GULP...

‘Private school teacher from Surrey votes Tory’ is hardly likely to make the front pages. However, it will be enough of a shock to most who know me and it will certainly be the first time it’s happened. It will also make me rather unusual even among those few who have voted for all three main parties in general elections (I was always a Labour supporter but voted tactically for the Lib Dems in Epsom & Ewell as the supposed closest opposition) - ‘floating voters’ are traditionally fairly disinterested, which I am clearly not. So why?

1.      Time for a Change: The phrase may be familiar! But it’s true. First and foremost, Brown must go and Labour need a spell out of power. Even if the two lead parties were exactly the same (and, post-Blair, I think we’ll see this as increasingly untrue), it would be worth ditching the incumbent just purely for a change. Anybody retaining power for too long will become corrupted and bloated by it; that’s the repeating story of humanity. New Labour has lost its early reforming zeal and seems to want power for its own sake, doling out daily half-truths to preserve it – change is sometimes a good thing in itself. This country needs a bit of ‘first 100 days’ excitement.  

Furthermore, Brown really doesn’t deserve another term. This is true on his helmsmanship at the Treasury alone. I get angry when he tries to take credit for handling the recession. Truth is, he was the Chancellor who sold our gold and plundered pensions when times were good. Even in those years he borrowed rather than saved and left nothing for a rainy day. He congratulated risk in the City and, even when later bailing out banks, required no commitment that interest cuts be passed on or mortgages made accessible. He is at least partly responsible for the fact our taxes go primarily towards interest payments on debt increasing by £500 million a day.

National not local: I have always spoken well of my local MP Sadiq Khan. He’s done nothing to spoil that as far as I’m concerned (although there is bad press rearing its head as I write regarding a dodgy expenses claim). I’m not alone – he’s been recognised as a fine and devoted Parliamentarian with awards from the Spectator, Guardian, Channel 4 and New Statesman. One of my first posts on this blog was regarding the dilemma faced when wanting to vote for a good local MP, but wanting to remove his party. Well, I’ve done my homework. Well, when faced with national vs. constituency considerations in voting, national has to win. We have local councillors responsible for local issues – potholes, licensing, parking and refuse collection; those are elected separately at local elections.  An MP however is for Westminster – they are primarily foot soldiers for their respective party – ordered by the Whips to toe the line and to vote as instructed from the top. Therefore, despite all the letterbox propaganda, there is a limit to what they can do for us acting as individuals. The party on the slip is more important than the name – an MP’s primary significance lies in them being part of a majority (or minority) party in the House of Commons.

That’s not to reject the local link altogether- I don’t back PR systems wherein MPs are chosen from a list, abandoning constituency accountability. It is important to have one member of Parliament whom you can approach knowing he’s bound to listen – he has a office here whereas the Prime Minister doesn’t. It’s important to have someone in Westminster lobbying on behalf of your community, and someone with clout flagging up important issues within that community. And that can make a specific difference for an area: I was hearing over lunch yesterday how much Chris Grayling has done to personally lead (and even fund) the campaign to save Epsom Hospital; I mentioned in the last post that Siobhain McDonough used her influence in Westminster to secure two new academy schools for her Mitcham & Morden constituency. Similarly, Sadiq Khan has worked within the Transport Department to expand the Oyster scheme, knowing this is specifically beneficial to those in Tooting. But, his concerns and his work remain primarily national in scope. And, ultimately, his career prospects are dependent on his impressing Brown, not on his representing Tooting residents. A vote for Khan IS a vote for Brown.

Electoral System: I’m not saying there’s anyone offering much better than the Tories in the current mess (there’s a great article on one of the blogs showing ‘Word Clouds’ made of the 3 leaders’ speeches so far – Nick Clegg’s 2 largest words are ‘Labour and ‘Conservative’!), but under a PR system I’d certainly take a look around. However, nationally and locally, Conservatives are the only realistic opposition if I want to be rid of Labour. Therefore it’s them I’ll vote for. I would love it to be the case that my vote counted, whoever I voted for. I’ll love a real debate on Proportional Representation.  People rail about the undesirability of coalition governments, bringing up Italian examples or 1970s scare stories. But it’s worked well in Scotland and Wales. North of the border, where the SNP lead with only 47 of the 129 seats, every policy to pass (and 9 out of 10 do) has found its majority via compromise and tinkering in meetings – an air of consensus results, and even the 2 Green MPs have their day in the sun! (They recently sunk the annual budget due to an unwillingness to drop road expansion schemes!). Meanwhile there has never been a Parliament offering a worse advert for ‘strong’ government than the current UK Labour administration. There’s has been a callous disregard for the wishes of others, the government convinced they know best regardless; be it over human rights, banks or the EU. Bring in PR, and see voter turnout rise through the roof as people are re-enfranchised...

I am becoming more conservative: The truth is this development hasn’t come out of nowhere. I am not a textbook conservative – I’m too keen on multi-culturalism for that - but I have nevertheless become more conservative as I’ve aged. It’s clearly true: I don’t like the nanny state and the desire to regulate anything that moves. I don’t like the idea that wealth is inherently bad and to be penalised with ‘Robin Hood’ economics (although I REALLY don’t like the idea that the wealthy should avoid paying their fair share by lurking in tax havens). I loathe the tide of political correctness that supports affirmative action, penalises Freedom of Speech and calls disagreement hatred. I’m also at a loss as to the destructive behaviour of many unions (and the nonsense my own comes up with) and worried by their growing influence.

Yes I will defend aspects of New Labour – the investment in education has made a difference (although not as much as you’d imagine looking at the staggering spending), waiting lists and crime are genuinely down, Britain has taken a lead in overseas aid, Sure Start is a good idea, as are academies, a good start has been made on constitutional reform... but I’m not sure Labour is any longer my natural home, nor that I’ll return.

So there you go – I’m holding my breath and crossing the Tory box. Unless something happens on the campaign trail and I change my mind again! Either way, you can’t accuse me of failing to think it through! Oh and the picture is of Mark Clarke - a good egg and the actual Tory for whom I will vote in Tooting. I haven't mentioned him yet!

ANDY'S GUIDE TO YOUR LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES

DONE AS A FACEBOOK NOTE, BUT THOUGHT I'D STICK IT UP HERE IN CASE IT'S HELPFUL...

Tooting (inc Balham West of railway & Earlsfield)

CURRENT MP: Sadiq Khan

WHO IS HE? Rising star – as proven by the fact he’s always in shot behind Gordon Brown on TV. Photogenic moderate Muslim, squeaky clean over expenses and always an opponent of the War on Iraq. Formerly a Human Rights lawyer and now 2^nd in the Transport Department. Local boy whose father drove the 44 bus.

OPPOSITION: Conservative Mark Clarke – born in the area and now back living in Tooting Bec, although slated by Khan for being registered to vote in ‘Chelsea’s Millionaire’s Row’. His literature focuses on the NHS – vowing to sort out St George’s Hospital, at which his mother used to work.

CHANCES: This could be a good contest. Some assume Tooting to be a safe Labour seat but, truth is, if the 2005 swing of 2,500ish seats from Labour to Conservative was repeated – it would be very close indeed.

Croydon North (inc. Norbury)

CURRENT MP: Malcolm Wicks, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? Been MP there since ’92. Never made it to the Cabinet but has been a Minister for Work & Pensions and then Energy. Has now stepped down and acts as Special Advisor to Brown. Disliked by environmentalists for supporting Oil Drilling in Mornay Firth (alleged risk to dolphins). Pretty good on expenses.

CHANCES: Stuck with him. Even with 4% swing away at last election, still had majority of 14,000. That, friends, is a safe seat.

Battersea (inc rest of Balham and Wandsworth)

CURRENT MP: Martin Linton, standing again for Labour

WHO IS HE? 66 years old and not shown much ambition to be part of government up to now. Content to serve as PPS to a number of ministers. His passion is for Palestine and a 2-state solution.

OPPOSITION: Jane Ellison, a Conservative candidate standing for the first time following 23 years working for John Lewis.

CHANCES: Surely goodbye Mr Linton if there is any kind of pro-Tory swing. His majority was one of the smallest in the country at the last election, winning by only 163 votes. Expect Tory Battersea for first time since ’92.

Streatham

CURRENT MP: Keith Hill, Labour, stepping down. Was formerly PPS to Blair himself, following a ministerial career, and retired to backbenches once Brown took over. Fighting the seat for Labour is instead Chuka Umunna.

WHO IS HE? Umanna is well worth watching and could be a big deal – he has been held up as a potential ‘British Obama’ in the press. He’s written for everyone from The Guardian to the FT, has appeared on Question Time and Daily Politics, has founded an influential online magazine and is a leading member of influential Labour pressure group Compass. The New Statesman reckons he’s ‘One of 10 People Who Could Change the World’. Big voice for change – arguing loudly for a new electoral system etc.

OPPOSITION: Lib Dem Chris Nicholson will be closest opposition based on the last couple of elections. He’s a Streatham chap who campaigned against the closure of the Post Office and Ice Rink. Rahoul Bhansali for the Conservaitves.

CHANCES: Conservatives did hold Streatham back in ’87, but they were 11,500 behind last time so seem out of it. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand will feel they have a shout. As with Tooting above, if they and Labour do the same as last time (Labour lost 3,000, Lib Dems gained 5,000), then they’ll have it.

Mitcham and Morden

CURRENT MP: Siobhain McDonough, Labour

WHO IS SHE?: Controversial. Amazed she’s standing again. Done badly out of expenses, and sacked from the government by Brown after she called for him to go. But apparently a good local MP, winning a specialist unit for St Heliers and 2 big Academies for the area.

OPPOSITION: Melanie Hampton for Conservatives.

CHANCES: Not much. Safe Labour seat with 12,5000 majority.

Sutton and Cheam:

CURRENT MP: Paul Burstow, Liberal Democrat

 WHO IS HE? Big Lib Dem player. Former key member of Shadow Cabinet, but now their Chief Whip. Known for being particularly knowledgable on issues regarding older people.

OPPOSITION: Philippa Stroud of Conservatives – so confident of victory she’s vowed to only engage in positive campaigning! Interesting track record actually – Director of the Cedntre for Social Justice and has formerly spent 18 months working with Triad gang members in Hong Kong!

CHANCES: If Tories are going to win anywhere it’s here. The Lib Dem win in ’97 was a big turn-up, but even in their lean times the Tories have stayed right on their heels, losing by less than 3,000 in ’05.

Wimbledon

CURRENT MP: Stephen Hammond, Conservative

WHO IS HE? A former banker and currently a shadow Transport Minister with special responsibility for London.

OPPOSITION: Andrew Judge, a notable local figure having headed up the local council for 5 years. Long-standing environmental campaigner.

CHANCES: This is a place of proper politics! A real class clash between the estates of Colliers Wood/South Wimbledon and the rich Tory suburbs. In 2001 it just about stayed Labour. In 2005 it just about went Conservative. Surely the way things are going Labour can’t win it back.

Epsom & Ewell

CURRENT MP: Chris Grayling, Conservative

WHO IS HE: Often impressive but strangely gaffe-prone Shadow Home Secretary.

OPPOSITION: None really. Even in the ’97 massacre the Conservatives kept a majority of 11,000!

CHANCES: A seat so safe you could leave you phone and wallet on it and wander off to drink.

Vauxhall (inc. North Clapham)

CURRENT MP: Kate Hoey, Labour

WHO IS SHE: Interestingly controversial and combative backbencher. Has been called “the least gay-friendly MP” by Stonewall and, whilst very much against fox-hunting, has complained about UK gun laws being too harsh! Has voted against her own party on at least 7 key issues, including the Lisbon Treaty, ID Cards, top-up fees and the war in Iraq. WAS Minister for Sport but later campaigned against the London Olympics, saying Paris was more deserving!

OPPOSITON: Caroline Pidgeon for Lib Dems

CHANCES: Safe Labour seat, even in the 80s.

WHY I CHOOSE TO BE A WEIRDO...

...By which I mean, why do I choose to identify myself as a Christian, let alone one of evangelical persuasion? It’s certainly not credible in the modern age, nor convenient – in terms of the drain on time, money and lifestyle. It’s almost certainly an irritation to my friends... But I happen to believe it’s true and very important. Why? I will attempt to briefly outline the reasoning:

a) I believe we were created. Yunshui once commented on one of my posts saying the choice between an unseen creator or a world grown from nothing out of randomness is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, there is ultimately either a guiding hand or there isn’t. Neither is ultimately provable, but I look at the existence of the fully formed and functioning DNA code of life emitting from even the first single-cell organism... and I see evidence of intelligence behind it. I look at the knowledge inherent in humanity that there is right, wrong and accountability... and I see external objective morality. I look at the history of cultures, each with the inbuilt urge to worship... and I see an inherent knowledge of something greater than ourselves. I have no beef with evolution, other than that a theory explaining only the drive for survival does not explain to me creativity, musicality, monogamy, altruism or beauty.

Indeed, I feel the real false dichotomy is between those who think and those who sustain faith.  I believe, and I think about it a great deal. I’ve even tried to turn my back on it in the past, but have found the alternative spiritually and logically unsatisfying in the extreme.The fact we’re here does mean something. The fine tuning required to sustain life, or indeed a stable universe, across a wide range of factors is in a probability bracket of a trillion to one and, whilst those odds are theoretically fine within an infinite universe, in no other context would we treat such reasoning as remotely convincing. Dawkins says there is only matter and energy, asking Who made God? To which I reply Who made your matter and energy? In short, I believe in God. 

b) The above remains the majority view globally. Many will stop there. But I’m a Christian, not merely a theist. I think it’s unsatisfactory to believe in God but then assume he wants nothing in return or has no intention of communicating with His creation. Why did he bother? Does he care if we completely ignore Him? Having studied it a fair bit, I find convincing answers in the Bible. I’m not obsessively literal about it all – I’m not going to spend my time arguing for a literal 6-day creation or a literally global flood – but I think the Jews lived up to their special billing; this semi-nomadic Middle Eastern tribe having survived and thrived to the present day despite the targeted persecution of Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Nazis for starters.  I believe we are indeed in a fallen world – people capable of greatness but generally wreaking a storyline of destruction and dissatisfaction repeating.

Above all, I think that the historical figure of Jesus Christ – God pitching up in human history to offer a solution, as repeatedly foretold in the Old Testament, lives up to the hype. His preaching and parables are sheer genius, his credibility was sufficient for 2 years of preaching to spark a worldwide movement, the early church who followed him were willing to travel far and wide for his sake, ultimately embracing martyr deaths and, crucially, those who would have loved to nip all this in the bud were unable to produce Jesus’ corpse or powerfully claim his non-existence following his all-important death in our place and subsequent re-appearance amidst once demoralised followers. He was cited in Roman and Jewish sources, and presented fully in the gospels; accounts written within the lifetimes of eye-witnesses by men of exceptional character, willing to depict their own weaknesses and write things that would get them persecuted. I recognise in his model a way of living that works and in his preaching a true description of my dilemma – that I’m a sinner needing saving but thereafter capable of living a productive and changed life. In short, I follow Jesus.

c) And then there’s the intangible results of faith... I’m not arrogant enough to present my own personal experiences as intellectually compelling to another. Yet it’s what we go through as individuals that ultimately seal the deal. I am intellectually convinced by Christianity – I hope you believe as much, even though the few words above only hint at the arguments contained. However, it is the change in myself and others, the unexplainables I have witnessed, the answered prayers and the fact it works... you could explain away each one and that’s OK – but here, living in my own skin, I choose to trust my senses and, several years in, I wouldn’t want to turn my back on Christianity for all the world. Not even following a year bringing with it a life-altering brain tumour for the person I love most.

Yes I know many Christians are hypocrites or ignorant (as of course are many atheists, Muslims, pagans or agnostics!). Yes I know George W Bush made it hard to be on the side of the Bible-bashers. Yes I know various Kings, Emperors and everymen have used and twisted the Bible to suit their own purposes throughout history. No, I don’t claim to have every answer for everything (and I’m a lot less know-all and intolerant, although no less convinced, than I was a couple of years back – life will that do that to you). Neither am I better than anyone else – true Christianity begins with the admission of rubbishness, although that’s no excuse to carry on that way.

But I am a Christian, and I will remain so. So feel free to ask me more if bemused, angered or fascinated... I reckon it’s worth thinking about – better a Dawkins than an ostrich!

PS I’ll balance this out with a post on football next!